Work in Iraq goes on
Bookworm on Jul 20 2006 at 10:31 am | Filed under: Iraq, Uncategorized
Much attention right now is focused on the border between Israel and Lebanon, but that doesn’t mean the US isn’t continuing to do its work in Iraq. It looks as if there’s another fairly big initiative going on to drive out terrorists from one of their local bases. What’s interesting is the fact that the US military acted at the Sunni’s request:
KIRKUK, Iraq (July 20, 2006) – Thursday morning, Soldiers from the 2nd Brigade, 4th Iraqi Army Division and Bastogne Soldiers of the 1st Brigade Combat Team, 101st Airborne Division simultaneously surrounded and entered the cities of Hawija and Riyadh, just west of Kirkuk, searching for suspected al-Qaeda terrorists as combined Operation Gaugamela (gaw’guh-MEE-luh), gets underway.
The ongoing operation, requested by local Sunni Arab leaders, follows a series of terror attacks in the area, and comes as there are reports indicating the presence of al-Qaeda terror cells in the area. In the past five weeks, 31 Iraqi soldiers have been killed in terrorist attacks in the region and just three days ago six policemen were killed in Hawija.
In Hawija, Bastogne Soldiers and Iraqi Security Forces surrounded the city, blocking off escape routes, as another combined force air assaulted into the market in the heart of the city. The units are cordoning off the area and searching for terrorist forces. Meanwhile, Iraqi Security and Coalition Forces surrounded the village of Riyadh, approximately 10 miles away, and are also searching that city.
Operation Gaugamela is named for the battle in which Alexander drove the Persian army from the city of Gaugamela. [Emphasis mine.]
The locals may not like the Americans, but they need them. That’s rather a galling position to be in, I guess, and a dangerous one for the Americans.
Email This Post To A Friend
3 Responses to “Work in Iraq goes on”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
It seemed like the Iraqis now get to name their operations. Obviously their military wants to drive the Persians, Iranians, out of their country.
I say that because the US usually doesn’t name their operations for ancient Arab historical events. We for example don’t name our operations “Thermopylae” or any such thing. Desert shield, desert storm.
Did you check out the poll data collected for Iraq, Bookworm? Specifically the compilation done by that think tank.
In terms of Shia vs Sunni vs Kurds, there are some broud patterns. The Kurds support the US about 7 to 3. Higher support than in America for the same general policies. The Shia are often split on issues concerning the war and America. For the Sunni, they are the opposite of the Kurds. 80 to 90% support attacks on America. While a majority favor using violence to carry out political goals. The Shia disagree about using violence, by a massive majority.
For the Sunni to have a 90% in favor of terrorism against the US occupation, is indicative of several factors. One, the war was too short. The devastation of Gulf War 1 on the Iraqi Army did not occur. There was no highway of death to shock and awe. And, the fact that Saddam released a bunch of criminals and his collaborators just sliped through to their safe houses. The process of rooting them out takes a long time because they are using Syria as a base of operations.
You cannot now retroactively “crush” the Sunnis anymore, simply because. Even without the collaboration government policy of Bush, you still could not do it, not after you’ve declared yourself in control of Iraq and not after you’ve begun occupation. The perception of the people is that now you guys are in power. Your power may be an illusion, but that doesn’t matter if that is what people believe.
Look at Israel. Israel killed more civilians in their little tet a tet war now than we did in Iraq with our invasion. They have a higher tolerance because they have not declared occupation and have not declared victory. The Lebanese blame Hizbollah. If we had crushed the SUnnis first, with an Afghanistan style operation using local support, then the Sunnis would have blamed Saddam for not protecting them (Saddam was their sugar daddy). The Sunni civilians would then turn to us, for mercy and to make a deal. Now, we have to have some kind of patched up fix on the fly solution, called “waiting until the Sunnis get tired of being killed by terroist”. Not a strategy you want to take if you value the lives of civilians and children.
Bush isn’t a military kind of person. He doesn’t like military operations, he doesn’t like using them, and he sure as heck does not understand the strategy of moving armies around via stratagems. Because of this, Bush opted for the “Short Victorious War”, as recommended by his generals and advisers. It would have been a fatal mistake for anyone except the President of the US, for the military is so good even wrong ass strategic decisions (like WWII) cannot prevent the military from salvaging the situation.
THe military has to fix the problems with the strategy-vision, by building up the Iraqi army to fight people who we should have destroyed in the first days of the war, but did not because…. the generals were afraid of casualties? Take no counsel from your fears. You see how many casualties we have sustained and the population of Iraq has sustained? In case the “let’s charge into Baghdad with our armor divisions as fast as possible” generals hadn’t noticed, their Short and Victorious War was a failure.
History is full of “Short and Victorious Wars” conducted by leaders that miscalculated. Japan for example believed hitting Pearl Harbor would result in a short and victorious war. Wrong.
There are Short and Victorious Wars, it isn’t impossible. However. Most short and victorious wars require some kind of cleverness and geniusness, if not massive casualties.
Another reason why the US military didn’t choose the operation name is because… it is hard to say. Nobody wants to name a operation they have trouble pronouncing in afire fight ; )
Back when a Canadian guy on the Left that favored the UN started complaining about why the generals did not use an air strike campaign for 3 weeks like Desert Storm. I said at the time (2003) that I trusted in the generals, and that if they believe this is the right strategy, I am going to support it and wait to see what happens.
Well, I’ve waited to see what happened, and I’ve learned a lot more about strategy and guerrila warfare, so the lack of judgement no longer applies for me now. It’s not that an air strike would have done anything, not if the cavalry just charged to the capital. An air strike would just scatter the terroists and they would confiscate civilian homes and live in them unti leverything was over. It was the “Army” generals that did it the “Army” way that had some big problems.
Bush didn’t override their decisions, like Teddy Roosevelt would have, because Bush is a delegator, he is not a micromanager. In this specific instance, his lack of micromanaging skills and lack of confidence in his own military judgement, was something that was best avoided.
[...] [Read more and discuss…] Social Networking:These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages. [...]